Deductions. We have just seen that certain exemptions allowed by the 1904 rules must be considered as in reality deductions. The Constantinople commission classed deductions under two different headings: General deductions common to all classes of ships, and special deductions for machinery space on steamships. The application of these Constantinople rules has not caused any serious difficulties since their adoption by the company. Arrangement of 1878.-Nevertheless, in the beginning it appeared to the English Government that the enumeration of spaces to be deducted as being exclusively intended for the crew and officers was incomplete. This question was looked into in the course of negotiations which we have already referred to in describing the right claimed by the Board of Trade to interpret the rules. The result was the agreement of 1878, by which the company agreed to allow deductions in the case of rooms for officers and petty officers, bathrooms, chart rooms, and doctor's cabin. This arrangement was merely an addition to the Constantinople rules, but did not alter any of its principles. It is in accordance with the liberal spirit which the company has always shown whenever it has been able to do so without violating the terms of its franchise or the provisions of the rules of 1873. Deductions for crew spaces.—It has recently appeared that the agreement of 1878 imposed too low limits upon the deductions for rooms and for bathrooms. The limits correspond to the conditions then existing, but are too strict for the present day. Considerable changes have taken place since that time. The greater comforts provided for the crew have led to installations which neither the commission of 1873 nor the agreement of 1878 mentioned as among those that might be deducted. But if the text of these rules does not specify them, it, nevertheless, can not be doubted but that the deductions of these spaces conform to the spirit which inspired these rules. The time would, therefore, appear to be ripe to increase the number of spaces to be deducted as spaces intended for the crew and for the officers, and to increase the limits which the agreement of 1878 placed on some of them. The limit which the commission imposed so formally and precisely upon the total of all these general deductions must, however, remain unchanged. A study of this question shows that in a great majority of cases the permissible limit of 5 per cent of gross tonnage will not be reached by permitting the deduction of all the rooms for officers and petty officers and of all bathrooms and lavatories for the exclusive use of the crew and officers. There would, therefore, be no trouble in adopting this liberal measure, which is clearly in accordance with the spirit of the rules. It should be understood, however, that the maximum limit of 5 per cent can not in any case be exceeded. Deductions for machinery.—The Constantinople rules have left to the shipowners the choice between two methods of deducting motive-power spaces. The commission intended not only to deduct the volume of the engine room and fireroom but also the space occupied by the fuel. This space not always being fixed, the commission permitted deductions to be determined either by measuring existing structures or by basing them upon the volume of the machinery space as indicating the volume of space to be used for carrying fuel. This is called the Danube rule of excess allowance. It is to be remarked that fuel might be considered with some justice as true merchandise. By taking on a great quantity of fuel ships avoid the necessity of purchasing it from ports of call, and thus establish its true nature as merchandise and provisions. This point of view could not be admitted, and was not even presented before the commission, the principal care of which was to keep in harmony with the principal features of the Moorsom system, according to which such a deduction was permissible. The application of the rules for the deduction of spaces occupied by the machinery has never caused serious difficulties. The maritime world has never attacked them. In the great majority of cases the Danube rule is applied, and one might say without exaggeration that the deduction that it permits generally considerably exceeds the space really occupied by the fuel. This possibly explains why this rule enjoys the favor of shipowners. It is possible that the more general employment of liquid fuel may considerably change the position in this matter. The heavy petroleum oils employed for firing can be easily stored in the spaces between the frames, spaces which are exempted in accordance with the method prescribed for measurement. To apply the Danube rule in such a case would result in deducting from the gross tonnage a volume representing spaces which did not exist-namely, spaces for fuel-and this would be manifestly absurd. The absurdity, distinctly contrary to the Constantinople rules, would result in favoritism being shown to ships using this method of firing. It would violate the essential principle of the franchise, which is equal treatment to all ships. It would not be possible to avoid this difficulty without violating one of the Constantinople rules, and it is probable that such action would have serious consequences. It is well known that in certain countries one is bound by the letter of the law in spite of the absurd consequences which might result. An example of this is the case of the Isabella in the history of English measurement. This contingency has happily not yet come up. The general use of liquid fuel, which has been predicted for some years, has not yet materialized. Nevertheless, it would be imprudent not to admit that this method of firing may be used much more in the future than at present. The company, therefore, must move with great prudence in this matter, and refrain from making any decision which might establish a precedent to be used against it if ever the question assumes a real importance. During the last few years a new type of marine engine, namely, the steam turbine, has made its appearance, and promises a successful future. This brings up the question of determining whether or not the Danube rule will fit to this new case. Will the proportion of the volume of the engine allowed in determining the space occupied by fuel apply to this new class of engine? The exact information necessary in order to give a definite opinion is at present lacking, but it seems probable that the Danube rule will in this case remain sufficiently satisfactory. Furthermore, it is to be remarked that since 1873 the ordinary type of engine has been greatly perfected; although their dimensions have been increased, the space occupied per horsepower has been decreased. The consumption of coal is proportionate to the power of the engine, and not to the space occupied by it. This evolution would have run great risk of upsetting any empirical rule such as the Danube rule, if it had not been accompanied by a corresponding reduction in the fuel consumption per horsepower. A horsepower requires much less space, but it also requires much less coal. The Danube rule is, therefore, still applicable at the present time. Actual Suez measurement. The study of Suez measurement from its beginning up to the present time shows that it has obeyed the law of evolution which no human institution can hope to escape; but this evolution has taken place without sensibly passing beyond the rigid limits which the franchise of the company and the Constantinople rules imposed upon the company. Thus the differences between the original system and its present application are very slight. The principle of measuring all the spaces, which had at one time been lost sight of, has been affirmed anew, and remains practically unchanged. The method of measurement continues to give a sufficiently accurate approximation in the great majority of cases, and whenever it has failed here and there the several nations have made the necessary corrections on their own initiative. The method of measurement naturally excludes certain spaces which have become more important than formerly, but up to the present time these spaces have not been used in practice except to carry water ballast. The deductions remain within the maximum limits laid down, and these limits have proven sufficiently large to enable greater deductions to be made for crew space and to allow for the new conditions which have arisen, without departing from the spirit of the rules. The method of calculating the deductions for machinery is still satisfactory from every point of view. The method of determining the net Suez tonnage is practically the same as that established by the International Commission of Constantinople. The legal maxim which it proclaimed, namely, that the net tonnage so determined was the best expression of the usable capacity, remains true. It may be asked if the evolution of the Suez system might not have been altogether different if the company had been left to its own resources to resist the powerful influences which during the same time have so largely modified national systems of measurement. The Suez system of measurement, in consequence of its application solely in the canal, is in a peculiar situation. The combined influences of the entire maritime world oppose the lone interest of one company. The struggle would not have been equal if the international agreement had not given it the force and the power, which it otherwise certainly would have lacked. This is one consequence, as beneficial as unforeseen, at the Constantinople conference, the decisions of which had to be forced upon the Suez Co. by military force. En résumé, despite some imperfections, the Suez system of measurement is certainly the most sane of all those in existence. It has the faults common to all systems, which base tonnage on volumes obtained by making certain deductions. It fully taxes the facilities for transporting volumes, and taxes the facilities for transporting weights in a more or less uncertain and generally more indulgent fashion. The limits, which have been placed upon the total extent of deductions permissible, prevent the advantage which ships especially designed for the transportation of heavy cargoes would enjoy, if their tonnage were based solely on volumes from acquiring an excessive and scandalous value. And it is impossible to obtain net Suez tonnages of zero or negative value as happens in the British registry to the great disadvantage of the companies and private corporations, whose revenues are thus collected upon a basis which is about as poor a measure as possible for the services which such enterprises render the ships. It is impossible to give an idea of the excesses to which volume measurement badly established, such as that of England, may lead. Mr. Isakson, surveyor for Lloyd's and member of the Institution of Naval Architects, prepared three plans of a ship capable of carrying 4,000 tons of heavy cargo. According to the first plan the net tonnage, British register, is 100 tons. According to the second, it is zero, and according to the third, it is negative and equal to 100 tons minus. It is fitting to recall the words of one of the administrators of the company at the second commission of investigation in 1871. If, as said by a noted diplomat, speech has been given man in order to disguise his thoughts, one would be tempted to believe from the results obtained that the methods prescribed for measuring tonnage have been created in order to disguise the true tonnage. The wisdom of the Constantinople rules and their maintenance intact, in spite of the vicissitudes of time, protects the Suez method of determining tonnage, in a great measure, from the burden of this reproach. |